Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8421254" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>A little late here, but the main reason I find is that the arguments used to justify pruning classes early on (when you have 12 or whatever) <em>generalize</em>, and most people who use those arguments are aware of this.</p><p></p><p>[SPOILER="Long digression explaining the process, you don't have to read it"]That is, a first-pass "let's trim the classes" argument is fundamentally saying, "If two classes have <em>sufficiently similar</em> structure or focus, they <em>should</em> be combined into a single unit and represented by subclasses." And they (usually correctly) note that there are certain similarities between the various classes, e.g.:</p><p></p><p>Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all similar to Fighters, and the latter two particularly resemble EKs, which were already folded into Fighter as a subclass.</p><p>Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and now Artificer are all similar to Wizard, just with a different mechanic for knowing spells and, for the first three, a different spellcasting mod.</p><p>Paladin has similarities to Cleric because they both worship gods and fight.</p><p>Ranger has similarities to Druid because they both do naturey things and fight.</p><p>Monk is similar to Fighter because both use some amount of physical grit.</p><p>Etc.</p><p></p><p>Applying the argument above, people then say, "Well, the Paladin is <em>clearly</em> very similar to the Cleric, Barbarian would work just fine as a Fighter subclass, Ranger is just a 'Druidic Knight,' Artificer makes perfect sense as a type of Wizard and the differences between Wizard/Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer aren't important to me. So let's clean it up! We now have Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard."</p><p></p><p>Except then the question becomes, if Bard, a songmaster and performance artist, was a reasonable fit to squish into Wizard, then why <em>isn't</em> Druid, a wild mystic and shapechanger, a reasonable fit to squish into Cleric, since we already have Nature Domain Clerics and both of them cast divine magic? And why does Monk--literally a pugilist, someone who fights with fists and feet--get kept out of Fighter when Barbarian and Paladin didn't? So we cull the list again, because the same arguments we used to get down to 6 encourage further downsizing, and don't feature any rational way out that doesn't feel arbitrary. So now we have Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard.</p><p></p><p>But wait--we already folded multiple different spellcasting traditions into <em>both</em> Cleric <em>and</em> Wizard, and we've already said it's fine that one casting class can use different spellcasting modifiers...so, given that "divine" vs "arcane" is a distinction without a difference in 5e, why are we keeping Cleric and Wizard separate? Clerics <em>already</em> get bonus proficiencies from their Domains, so we can just fold up all the fighty-stuff into subclass-domains that are equivalent to subclass-schools. Now we're down to Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue.</p><p></p><p>A lot of people will stop here, because three "feels good." But, as before, there's no <em>strict</em> reason why we have to stop--and, rationally, again the same arguments apply. If classes as disparate as Monk and Barbarian could be folded into the Fighter, why is Rogue different? It's not like Rogues practice some secret art Fighters could never learn, and they already had an innate parallel in the EK/AT concept. Why not just mush the two together? It's just one more class, after all, and you could even re-use several subclasses (like Shadow Monk or EK) with simple variant rules. Boom, now we've got the two-class setup.</p><p></p><p>From there, you get to a thorny question, and <em>most</em> people will stop there: Should classes even exist at all? Why do we separate casting and fighting? We have casters that fight (War/Bladesinger Wizards, War/Storm Clerics, Moon Druids, etc.) We have fighters that cast (Paladins, Rangers, EKs, etc.) Clearly we aren't <em>actually</em> that committed to separating the two from one another. Indeed, we continually make options for either side to dabble in the other. If we're already going to the effort of overhauling <em>this much</em> of the system, abolishing all but two classes, does "class" even really carry much meaning anymore? Each of these "classes" now has dozens of subclasses, each of which heavily modifies the base. If we're going to go to the level of figuring out how each of these dozen things can be validly compressed into just two...why not go the other way, and break <em>every</em> class up into its component pieces, and let people CHOOSE what they want to play?[/SPOILER]</p><p></p><p>The big reason most people don't stop at 5-6 classes is because you had to be pretty ruthless about your condensing choices if you got that far, and that ruthlessness generalizes. You could <em>probably</em> stop at, say, 8-9 classes by doing the following simple things:</p><p>Paladin -> Fighter (or Paladin -> Cleric, whichever your preference)</p><p>Barbarian -> Fighter</p><p>Sorcerer -> Wizard OR Warlock -> Sorcerer OR Warlock->Wizard (whichever you think is easier to do)</p><p>Ranger -> Fighter</p><p>Artificer -> Wizard</p><p></p><p>At that point, you've eliminated all the "well it's kind of like a fighter, but it does X too" classes except Monk, and you've gotten rid of either Warlocks or Sorcerers, trimming down the "bloat" of charisma-based casters. You're left with Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, (Sorcerer ~or~ Warlock), Wizard. There's still several points where you could validly ask "why are these <em>arbitrarily</em> separate," e.g. why do you still have two different Charisma casters, why isn't Monk or Rogue getting folded into Fighter, why isn't Druid getting folded into Cleric, etc. But Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, and Artificer are all commonly put up on the chopping block, and I swear people have a huge boner for either "Sorcerer is just a Charisma Wizard," "Warlocks are just Wizards who cheated," and/or "Warlocks are just Sorcerers who got their power directly."</p><p></p><p>Edit:</p><p>I should add to the above, there are two things that people often get hung up on in this, which drive things toward ever-greater reductionism (and which are part of why I oppose reductionism merely for its own sake). Those are "necessity" and "objectivity." (Note the quotes.)</p><p></p><p>Most of the arguments against the chopping-block classes will invoke necessity at some point--"you don't <em>need</em> Paladin if you have Cleric and Fighter." But you don't NEED <em>any</em> classes (or other specific rules), aka classless games exist. "You don't need it" generalizes all the way down. That's why you only start to see <em>resistance</em> to it at the 4-and-under mark: 4 is traditional, 3 is your last RPS stop, 2 is the last contrast. It's easy to ignore the costs of the necessity argument when there are a lot of classes, and (usually) the person recommending this either doesn't play or actively dislikes the classes they're eliminating--but, again, it becomes hard to say "no" to eliminative reasoning when you said "yes" to the exact same argument previously.</p><p></p><p>The other thing a lot of people are doing is trying to <em>justify</em> their pruning. Without a justification, many will ask either why the reductionist's preferences matter more (if speaking of the game overall), or why the reductionist is ignoring popular options. Now, the simple answer is "there is no reason, I just don't want them," but that doesn't really fly in <em>discussion</em> very well. So, for people engaging in a discussion about it, they'll cast about for justifications, for <em>objectivity</em> in their pruning. "Of course Paladin<em> should</em> be removed. It's just a weird Cleric variant!" Etc. But one can find "objective" justifications for removing any class, as long as one ignores enough costs and highlights enough benefits.</p><p></p><p>So...yeah. The arguments in favor of reductionism kinda form an express train to few-to-zero classes, and it's often hard to get off that train until you've stripped things down quite far. Stopping right in the middle feels ad-hoc and arbitrary; stopping early is easy, but has minimal impact, so there's not much reason to discuss it; and that just leaves stopping late.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8421254, member: 6790260"] A little late here, but the main reason I find is that the arguments used to justify pruning classes early on (when you have 12 or whatever) [I]generalize[/I], and most people who use those arguments are aware of this. [SPOILER="Long digression explaining the process, you don't have to read it"]That is, a first-pass "let's trim the classes" argument is fundamentally saying, "If two classes have [I]sufficiently similar[/I] structure or focus, they [I]should[/I] be combined into a single unit and represented by subclasses." And they (usually correctly) note that there are certain similarities between the various classes, e.g.: Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all similar to Fighters, and the latter two particularly resemble EKs, which were already folded into Fighter as a subclass. Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and now Artificer are all similar to Wizard, just with a different mechanic for knowing spells and, for the first three, a different spellcasting mod. Paladin has similarities to Cleric because they both worship gods and fight. Ranger has similarities to Druid because they both do naturey things and fight. Monk is similar to Fighter because both use some amount of physical grit. Etc. Applying the argument above, people then say, "Well, the Paladin is [I]clearly[/I] very similar to the Cleric, Barbarian would work just fine as a Fighter subclass, Ranger is just a 'Druidic Knight,' Artificer makes perfect sense as a type of Wizard and the differences between Wizard/Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer aren't important to me. So let's clean it up! We now have Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard." Except then the question becomes, if Bard, a songmaster and performance artist, was a reasonable fit to squish into Wizard, then why [I]isn't[/I] Druid, a wild mystic and shapechanger, a reasonable fit to squish into Cleric, since we already have Nature Domain Clerics and both of them cast divine magic? And why does Monk--literally a pugilist, someone who fights with fists and feet--get kept out of Fighter when Barbarian and Paladin didn't? So we cull the list again, because the same arguments we used to get down to 6 encourage further downsizing, and don't feature any rational way out that doesn't feel arbitrary. So now we have Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. But wait--we already folded multiple different spellcasting traditions into [I]both[/I] Cleric [I]and[/I] Wizard, and we've already said it's fine that one casting class can use different spellcasting modifiers...so, given that "divine" vs "arcane" is a distinction without a difference in 5e, why are we keeping Cleric and Wizard separate? Clerics [I]already[/I] get bonus proficiencies from their Domains, so we can just fold up all the fighty-stuff into subclass-domains that are equivalent to subclass-schools. Now we're down to Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue. A lot of people will stop here, because three "feels good." But, as before, there's no [I]strict[/I] reason why we have to stop--and, rationally, again the same arguments apply. If classes as disparate as Monk and Barbarian could be folded into the Fighter, why is Rogue different? It's not like Rogues practice some secret art Fighters could never learn, and they already had an innate parallel in the EK/AT concept. Why not just mush the two together? It's just one more class, after all, and you could even re-use several subclasses (like Shadow Monk or EK) with simple variant rules. Boom, now we've got the two-class setup. From there, you get to a thorny question, and [I]most[/I] people will stop there: Should classes even exist at all? Why do we separate casting and fighting? We have casters that fight (War/Bladesinger Wizards, War/Storm Clerics, Moon Druids, etc.) We have fighters that cast (Paladins, Rangers, EKs, etc.) Clearly we aren't [I]actually[/I] that committed to separating the two from one another. Indeed, we continually make options for either side to dabble in the other. If we're already going to the effort of overhauling [I]this much[/I] of the system, abolishing all but two classes, does "class" even really carry much meaning anymore? Each of these "classes" now has dozens of subclasses, each of which heavily modifies the base. If we're going to go to the level of figuring out how each of these dozen things can be validly compressed into just two...why not go the other way, and break [I]every[/I] class up into its component pieces, and let people CHOOSE what they want to play?[/SPOILER] The big reason most people don't stop at 5-6 classes is because you had to be pretty ruthless about your condensing choices if you got that far, and that ruthlessness generalizes. You could [I]probably[/I] stop at, say, 8-9 classes by doing the following simple things: Paladin -> Fighter (or Paladin -> Cleric, whichever your preference) Barbarian -> Fighter Sorcerer -> Wizard OR Warlock -> Sorcerer OR Warlock->Wizard (whichever you think is easier to do) Ranger -> Fighter Artificer -> Wizard At that point, you've eliminated all the "well it's kind of like a fighter, but it does X too" classes except Monk, and you've gotten rid of either Warlocks or Sorcerers, trimming down the "bloat" of charisma-based casters. You're left with Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, (Sorcerer ~or~ Warlock), Wizard. There's still several points where you could validly ask "why are these [I]arbitrarily[/I] separate," e.g. why do you still have two different Charisma casters, why isn't Monk or Rogue getting folded into Fighter, why isn't Druid getting folded into Cleric, etc. But Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, and Artificer are all commonly put up on the chopping block, and I swear people have a huge boner for either "Sorcerer is just a Charisma Wizard," "Warlocks are just Wizards who cheated," and/or "Warlocks are just Sorcerers who got their power directly." Edit: I should add to the above, there are two things that people often get hung up on in this, which drive things toward ever-greater reductionism (and which are part of why I oppose reductionism merely for its own sake). Those are "necessity" and "objectivity." (Note the quotes.) Most of the arguments against the chopping-block classes will invoke necessity at some point--"you don't [I]need[/I] Paladin if you have Cleric and Fighter." But you don't NEED [I]any[/I] classes (or other specific rules), aka classless games exist. "You don't need it" generalizes all the way down. That's why you only start to see [I]resistance[/I] to it at the 4-and-under mark: 4 is traditional, 3 is your last RPS stop, 2 is the last contrast. It's easy to ignore the costs of the necessity argument when there are a lot of classes, and (usually) the person recommending this either doesn't play or actively dislikes the classes they're eliminating--but, again, it becomes hard to say "no" to eliminative reasoning when you said "yes" to the exact same argument previously. The other thing a lot of people are doing is trying to [I]justify[/I] their pruning. Without a justification, many will ask either why the reductionist's preferences matter more (if speaking of the game overall), or why the reductionist is ignoring popular options. Now, the simple answer is "there is no reason, I just don't want them," but that doesn't really fly in [I]discussion[/I] very well. So, for people engaging in a discussion about it, they'll cast about for justifications, for [I]objectivity[/I] in their pruning. "Of course Paladin[I] should[/I] be removed. It's just a weird Cleric variant!" Etc. But one can find "objective" justifications for removing any class, as long as one ignores enough costs and highlights enough benefits. So...yeah. The arguments in favor of reductionism kinda form an express train to few-to-zero classes, and it's often hard to get off that train until you've stripped things down quite far. Stopping right in the middle feels ad-hoc and arbitrary; stopping early is easy, but has minimal impact, so there's not much reason to discuss it; and that just leaves stopping late. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?
Top